4 ms·

Depends if you consider it pure raw material (I think it is) that you can use to convey something of your own or if you can relate to some point to it (and do t

Depends if you consider it pure raw material (I think it is) that you can use to convey something of your own or if you can relate to some point to it (and do the same, but to some further extent). At a rather utilitarian level, one wouldn't consider a spoon exactly the same way whether it was: 1) carved out of wood by someone you can relate to (by history, reasons, knowledge); as a unique piece, or part of a series; 2) or built in a factory, by workers; and available in the same fashion in X instances; 3) or built in a factory by robots; and available as an exact copy in X instances; 4) or a pure unique artefact that got the practical shape of a spoon. And that would be for a spoon only. I am of the school of thought that one doesn't make art without the intent of communicating/transmiting (it/through it) with other people, however remote/intimate it can be. If only because one cannot live alone. In this line, whatever pleasing something can be, if there's no transmission/communication/need/desire behind the creation of it, if there is no social reason behind it, it has no resonance, no affect to me that makes me actually relate to it (and to the person that thought of it, fell on it, carved it in their words, sounds, silences, colors, shapes, steps, etc.). To me, whatever the artist intent was, when anything is done, it is done by someone - this someone cared, if only enough to make it, and that way attached something to their work. That is something I can try to relate to (to the product itself, and to the intent perhaps). When something is produced by a system, there still may be the intent of the person(s) that designed this system. But it may also be totally independant of the designers scope. That is interesting also, as pure rough material. But it isn't remotely as profound, interesting, human as something that is done by someone real.

ddoeth 7y ago
Now consider this: Something generated by a computer, in this case music, has no intent. But what happens if I curate it, judge it, only publish the best ones. Through that I add my intent. Where is the difference between curating a number of computer generated songs into an album, and curating a number of computer generated sounds into a piece of music? Both require some sort of talent, both add intent to something that a computer generated.
- Juliate 7y ago
  Of course. You add your intent of curation/collection. The part that's original to you is the curation itself. Not the songs being collected themselves. It's the same with instruments that generate a sound (whether mechanical or electronic ones). The sound source might be more or less generated. But what you do with it, the music you compose and play with it, that is original to your self. But the source sound material is just that: raw material.
nkrisc 7y ago
How much of that profoundness is within our own heads because we know someone made it. We might imagine their intent, working back from the final representation to imagine what they might have felt creating it. So in that regard, as long as we're honest with the viewer, I imagine your point holds; it won't ever be the same. Yet I have to imagine that how most art is consumed these days already does away with any notion of "intent of the artist." Did the artist intend for their work to be displayed in large galleries, alongside countless other works, hundreds of years later? Who knows? We're constantly re-imagining these works by placing them in new contexts and priming viewers in different ways. However it is different when the artist is still with us. Would cubist paintings have the same depth if the viewer was lead to believe that a computer had generated them?
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  Context. You said it with context. I don't think art is experienced in one way only, and context is important (as almost always). In the case of cubism—it was a response to the mode of the time. Form was being questioned. It was a philosophical effort expressed and communicated in its own way. That's one experience. Another is purely aesthetic. Much the same with music.A computer wouldn't likely [at this stage, anyway] developed the blues. It's not purely algorithmic, though the resulting form can be used to develop one. A lot of that kind of music only developed as a result of empathy and the ability to relate to the poetry and the mood and feelings imbued by it. Likewise, that's one experience. Another is purely aesthetic. Another yet begins with the aesthetic and might explore the history to develop a more profound experience through the attempt at understanding. I'm quite brazenly biased here. I don't resent the efforts, nor would I disparage the results of computer generated music. But I don't think it compares. By that I don't mean one is objectively better or worse than the other; I mean quite strictly that I don't think they compare. It wasn't experience that resulted in the emergence—just mild variations on a "consciously" used algorithm. (I know I'm oversimplifying—it's not meant to degrade the author's or other commenters' work in the field)
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    Fair enough, that's a good point. Art is constantly given new meaning, whether initially by the artist, or those who choose to display it, and finally by those who view it (and in some cases those who then try to ban or suppress it!). I do see the argument that a human element is required. Is computer generated noise "music" until someone selects and features it? I'm not necessarily arguing for one view over the other, I'm just not yet entirely convinced that a computer can't generate art, without devolving into debating what is and isn't art altogether.

ddoeth 7y ago

Now consider this: Something generated by a computer, in this case music, has no intent. But what happens if I curate it, judge it, only publish the best ones. Through that I add my intent. Where is the difference between curating a number of computer generated songs into an album, and curating a number of computer generated sounds into a piece of music? Both require some sort of talent, both add intent to something that a computer generated.

Juliate 7y ago
Of course. You add your intent of curation/collection. The part that's original to you is the curation itself. Not the songs being collected themselves. It's the same with instruments that generate a sound (whether mechanical or electronic ones). The sound source might be more or less generated. But what you do with it, the music you compose and play with it, that is original to your self. But the source sound material is just that: raw material.

nkrisc 7y ago

How much of that profoundness is within our own heads because we know someone made it. We might imagine their intent, working back from the final representation to imagine what they might have felt creating it. So in that regard, as long as we're honest with the viewer, I imagine your point holds; it won't ever be the same. Yet I have to imagine that how most art is consumed these days already does away with any notion of "intent of the artist." Did the artist intend for their work to be displayed in large galleries, alongside countless other works, hundreds of years later? Who knows? We're constantly re-imagining these works by placing them in new contexts and priming viewers in different ways. However it is different when the artist is still with us. Would cubist paintings have the same depth if the viewer was lead to believe that a computer had generated them?

52-6F-62 7y ago
Context. You said it with context. I don't think art is experienced in one way only, and context is important (as almost always). In the case of cubism—it was a response to the mode of the time. Form was being questioned. It was a philosophical effort expressed and communicated in its own way. That's one experience. Another is purely aesthetic. Much the same with music.A computer wouldn't likely [at this stage, anyway] developed the blues. It's not purely algorithmic, though the resulting form can be used to develop one. A lot of that kind of music only developed as a result of empathy and the ability to relate to the poetry and the mood and feelings imbued by it. Likewise, that's one experience. Another is purely aesthetic. Another yet begins with the aesthetic and might explore the history to develop a more profound experience through the attempt at understanding. I'm quite brazenly biased here. I don't resent the efforts, nor would I disparage the results of computer generated music. But I don't think it compares. By that I don't mean one is objectively better or worse than the other; I mean quite strictly that I don't think they compare. It wasn't experience that resulted in the emergence—just mild variations on a "consciously" used algorithm. (I know I'm oversimplifying—it's not meant to degrade the author's or other commenters' work in the field)
- nkrisc 7y ago
  Fair enough, that's a good point. Art is constantly given new meaning, whether initially by the artist, or those who choose to display it, and finally by those who view it (and in some cases those who then try to ban or suppress it!). I do see the argument that a human element is required. Is computer generated noise "music" until someone selects and features it? I'm not necessarily arguing for one view over the other, I'm just not yet entirely convinced that a computer can't generate art, without devolving into debating what is and isn't art altogether.